IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4279 of 2007()
1. DILNA SONY, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007
ORDER
These applications filed by the common petitioner are all for
anticipatory bail. She faces allegations in crimes alleging commission
of offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Some of the
complaints have been lodged directly before the police. Some of them
have been filed before the Magistrate and referred to the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations raised is that the
petitioner, in collusion with her husband, had fraudulently received
amounts from job seekers promising to provide for them employment
abroad. Employment was not provided. Amounts have not been
returned. Allegation is that the promise of employment was made
fraudulently with the knowledge that it is false and is not intended to
be acted upon, only for the purpose of inducing the job seekers to part
with money. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner’s husband
has been arrested on 19.05.07. He continues in custody from that
date. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations raised against the petitioner are false. He submits that in
the initial complaints filed there was no specific overt act whatsoever
alleged against the petitioner. The subsequent complaints have
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 2
undergone transformation and allegations have been incorporated
alleging that the petitioner also had specific role in the alleged fraud
played by her husband. The petitioner has an employment in
Government. She has a breast feeding child. In these circumstances,
the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of arrest and incarceration.
Allegations are being raised against her with the sole intention of
coercing her and her husband to solve the unsettled disputes.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned
Public Prosecutor contends that in some of the petitions, there is
specific allegation of the precise contumacious role played by the
petitioner in the commission of the offence.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Notwithstanding
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor , I am satisfied that
the petitioner, a woman, can be granted anticipatory bail subject, of
course, to appropriate conditions, which shall completely ensure the
interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation.
5. In the result, these applications for anticipatory bail, are
allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate
having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 31.07.2007. She shall be released on
regular bail on condition that she executes bonds in each case for
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 3
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 5
p.m on 01.08.2007 to 04.08.2007. Thereafter she shall make herself
available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10
a.m and 12 noon on all Sundays and Fridays for a period of two
months. Subsequently she shall make herself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer;
iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest
the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law as if those
directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on
31.07.07 as directed in clause (1) above, she shall be released from
custody on her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh
only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned
Magistrate on 31.07.07.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 4
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 5
R.BASANT, J
————————————
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280 & 4291 of 2007
————————————-
Dated this the 23th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Call along with connected B.A.No.4459 of 2007 and other
matters tomorrow (24.07.2007).
2. The undertaking will continue till 24.07.07, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor and the same is accepted.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 6
R.BASANT, J
————————————
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280 & 4291 of 2007
————————————-
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007
ORDER
The learned Public Prosecutor again prays for time. Call on
17.07.2007.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor undertakes and the said
undertaking is accepted that the petitioner shall not be arrested till
the disposal of these Bail Applications.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.Nos.4279, 4280, 4291, 4451, 4452, 4455, 4456,
4457, 4458, 4459 & 4460 of 2007 7